JUDGMENT CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :— The workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay raised an Industrial dispute with regard to the retirement age of the clerical staff employed in the Refinery Divison of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Bombay. The demand of the workmen was that the retirement age of the clerical staff of the Refinery Division at Bombay must be raised from 55 years to 60 years in keeping with the trend in the Bombay region. The Company resisted the demand on the ground that in all similar oil companies the retirement age of the clerical staff engaged in the Refinery Division had never been fixed at 60 years. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Bombay to whom the dispute was referred for adjudication, neither party led any oral evidence. The workmen relied upon several decisions of this court to establish that the trend of industry in Bombay was to fix the retirement age of the clerical staff at 60 years, while the company contented itself by filing a statement showing the age of retirement of clerical staff employed in various oil companies. The Industrial Tribunal found as a fact that the wage scales of the company were not much better than the wage scales of other comparable concerns. The Industrial Tribunal also noticed that the age of retirement of the clerical staff of the company in its Marketing Division both at Bombay and other places was fixed at 58 years. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, held that there was no valid reason why the retirement age of the clerical staff employed in the Refinery Division should not be raised at least to 58 years. But having regard to the circumstance that the clerical staff employed in the Refinery Division had already been granted, under a settlement, the benefits of Provident Fund and Gratuity and having further regard to the fact that while the number of members of the clerical staff employed in the Refinery Division was 148 only, there were as many as 1095 workmen in the non-clerical category, who would also surely raise a dispute to revise their retirement age, the Industrial Tribunal thought that in the interest of industrial harmony, it would be proper to raise the retirement age of the clerical staff to 58 years only and not to 60 years. The workmen have preferred this appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The workmen have preferred this appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. As before the Industrial Tribunal, so too before us, the workmen relied on the trend in the Bombay region while the company relied on the position in other oil companies. 2. In fixing the age of retirement, several factors have to be taken into consideration. These factors have been explained at length in Guest, Keen Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling (1960) 1 SCR 348, Dunlop Rubber Company Limited v. Workmen, (1960) 2 SCR 51 , Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1961) 2 SCR 349 , British Paints (India) Ltd, v. Its Workmen, (1966) 2 SCR 523 , G. M. Talang v. Shaw Wallace & Co., (1964) 7 SCR 424 and Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 363 (SC). 3. Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling, ( AIR 1959 SC 1279 ) was a case from Calcutta and it may not be useful to discover the trend in the Bombay region. However, some of the relevant factors to be taken into account in fixing the age of superannuation have been stated and we may usefully extract the observations made by the learned judges in that case. It was said (at p. 1287) : "In fixing the age of superannuation industrial tribunals have to take into account several relevant factors. What is the nature of the work assigned to the employees in the course of their employment? What is the nature of the wage structure paid to them? What are the retirement benefits and other amenities available to them? What is the character of the climate where the employees work and what is the age of superannuation fixed in comparable industries in the same region? What is generally the practice prevailing in the Industry in the past in the matter of retiring its employees? These and other relevant facts have to be weighed by the tribunal in every case when it is called upon to fix an age of superannuation in an industrial dispute." 4. The trend of industry in the Bombay region to raise the age of retirement from 55 to 60 years was noticed by this court in Dunlop Rubber Company Limited v. Workmen, ( AIR 1960 SC 207 ). The trend of industry in the Bombay region to raise the age of retirement from 55 to 60 years was noticed by this court in Dunlop Rubber Company Limited v. Workmen, ( AIR 1960 SC 207 ). Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, ( AIR 1961 SC 1175 ), British Paint (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, ( AIR 1966 SC 732 ), G. M. Talang v. Shaw Wallace & Co., ( AIR 1964 SC 1886 ) and Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1970-1 Lab LJ 363 (SC)). 5. In the Dunlop Rubber Company case, ( AIR 1960 SC 207 ), the Tribunal noticed that the trend in the Bombay region was to raise the age of retirement to sixty years for clerical staff and, accordingly, raised the age of the clerical staff of the company to sixty years notwithstanding the fact that in the previous agreement, the retirement age was fixed at 55 years. The SC upheld the award as it accorded with the prevailing conditions in many concerns in that region. One of the submissions made to the SC was that the clerical staff of the company employed in Bombay was a small minority of the total clerical staff employed by the company throughout India, that in the case of the large majority employed outside Bombay, the age of retirement was 55 and, therefore, the retirement age of the small minority of workmen employed in Bombay should not be raised from 55 to 60 years. It was argued that the company was an All-India concern and occupied a special position and it was, therefore, desirable and proper that no change should be made to benefit a small minority of workmen employed in Bombay. The submission was repelled by the SC and it was observed (at pp. 208-209) :- "There is no doubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in any such concern they should not be lightly changed. The submission was repelled by the SC and it was observed (at pp. 208-209) :- "There is no doubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in any such concern they should not be lightly changed. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that industrial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise where it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of an all-India concern are uniform. Besides, however desirable uniformity may be in the case of all-India concerns, the Tribunal cannot abstain from seeing that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is concerned. If, therefore, any scheme, which may be uniformally in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concern, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the duty of the Tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing conditions in such matters, particularly in the region in which the Tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen employed in one place out of the many where the all-India concern carries on business." It will be seen that great emphasis was laid on the conditions prevailing in the region even to the extent of overriding the conditions of service of other workmen in the employment of the very company elsewhere. 6. In Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Workmen ( AIR 1961 SC 1175 at p. 1178), Gajendragadkar, J. observed : "It is generally recognised in industrial adjudication that where an employer adopts a fair and reasonable pension scheme that would play an important part in fixing the age of retirement at a comparatively earlier stage. 6. In Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Workmen ( AIR 1961 SC 1175 at p. 1178), Gajendragadkar, J. observed : "It is generally recognised in industrial adjudication that where an employer adopts a fair and reasonable pension scheme that would play an important part in fixing the age of retirement at a comparatively earlier stage. If a retired employee can legitimately look forward to the prospect of earning a pension then the hardship resulting from early compulsory retirement is considerably mitigated; that is why cases where there is a fair and reasonable scheme of pension in vogue would not be comparable or even relevant in dealing with the age of retirement in a concern where there is no much pension scheme." In that case it was submitted by the Attorney General who appeared for the company that the company was an All-India concern and it was of great importance that the terms and conditions of service prevailing in several branches of the company all over the country should be stable and uniform and that in the matter of retirement the company had uniformly fixed the age of retirement at 55 since 1950 and this arrangement should not be disturbed because it would inevitably upset the age of retirement in all other branches. It was also submitted that the Tribunal had raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58 and that the SC should not interfere with the decision of the Tribunal and further raise it to 60. It was also urged that the general terms and conditions provided by the company to its employees were very liberal and that the industrial concerns in Bombay where the age of retirement had been fixed at 60 were not comparable to the company and, therefore, no importance should be attached to the trend disclosed by those companies. All these submissions were rejected by the court on the primary consideration that the recent trend in the Bombay area clearly appeared to be to fix the age of retirement at 60. 7. In British Paints India Limited v. Its Workmen, ( AIR 1966 SC 732 ), this court expressed the view that there had been a general improvement in the standard of health in the country and that longevity had increased and therefore, fixation of age of retirement at 60 years appeared to be quite reasonable in the circumstance. 7. In British Paints India Limited v. Its Workmen, ( AIR 1966 SC 732 ), this court expressed the view that there had been a general improvement in the standard of health in the country and that longevity had increased and therefore, fixation of age of retirement at 60 years appeared to be quite reasonable in the circumstance. The court, further observed that the age of retirement at 55 years was fixed in the last century in Government service and had become the pattern for fixing the age of retirement everywhere. The court then said (at p. 734) : "But time in our opinion has now come considering the improvement in the standard of health and increase in longevity in this country during the last fifty years that the age of retirement should be fixed at a higher level, and we consider that generally speaking in the present circumstances fixing the age of retirement at 60 years would be fair and proper, unless there are special circumstances justifying fixation of a lower age of retirement". 8. In G. M. Talang v. Shaw Wallace & Co., ( AIR 1964 SC 1886 ), reference was also made to the report of the Second Pay Commission which had referred to the age of retirement in 48 countries of the world and to the report of the Norms Committee, a Committee an which both employers and employees of the Bombay region were represented, which had said (at p. 1889) :- "After taking into consideration the views of the earlier Committees and Commissions including those of the Second Pay Commission, the report of which has been released recently, we feel that the retirement age for workmen, in all industries, should be fixed at 60 years. Accordingly the norm for retirement age is fixed at 60." The comment of the court on the report of the Norms Committee was :- "This considered opinion of a Committee on which both employers and employees were represented emphasized the fact that in the Bombay region, at least there is a general agreement that the age of retirement should be fixed at 60." 9. In the Burmah Shell Oil Company, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 363 (SC) case, this Court observed :- "In fixing the age of superannuation the most important factor that has to be taken into consideration is the trend in a particular area. In the Burmah Shell Oil Company, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 363 (SC) case, this Court observed :- "In fixing the age of superannuation the most important factor that has to be taken into consideration is the trend in a particular area. That position is made clear by this court in Talang (G. M.) v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (AIR 1964 SC1886). There is no denying the fact that life expectation has greatly increased in recent years due to healthier living conditions, better food and improved medical facilities though we have still a long way to go in that regard. Under modern conditions, speaking generally, the efficiency of workmen is not impaired till about 60 years. The needs of a workman are likely to be greater between the age of 50 to 60 years as during that period he has to educate his children, marry his daughters, in addition to maintaining his family. If one looks at the word trend it is obvious that the age of superannuation is gradually pushed up.........." "As we said earlier in, the matter of fixing the age of superannuation, the trend in a particular area is the most important factor, though in the matter of determining the other conditions of service of workmen, the principle of region-cum-industry is by and large the determinative factor .........................." "From the various decisions rendered by this court and by the Tribunals, it is obvious that the trend is to raise the age of superannuation. It is also clear from those decisions that so far as Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi areas are concerned, the trend appears to raise the age of superannuation to 60 years." On the facts of the case, however, the court noticing that in the appellant company, there was a fair pension scheme for the clerical staff, fixed the age of superannuation in their case at 58 years, while leaving untouched the decision of the Tribunal fixing the retirement age of other workmen at 60 years. 10. It is to be noticed that the four cases which related to the Bombay region were all of the early sixties. Two decades have passed. Industrial and labour conditions do not remain stagnant despite the passage of time. Industrial-labour relations need revision from time to time to fit and suit changing conditions. 10. It is to be noticed that the four cases which related to the Bombay region were all of the early sixties. Two decades have passed. Industrial and labour conditions do not remain stagnant despite the passage of time. Industrial-labour relations need revision from time to time to fit and suit changing conditions. That there was an upward trend to raise the age of retirement to sixty in the early sixties may not necessarily mean that the same trend has continued till today. But, in the present case, the company did not plead that there was any reversal of the trend nor did Shri G. B. Pai, learned Counsel for the company, urge before us that there was any such reversal of the trend. On the other hand, it may very well be said that there has been much progress in the last two decades in the matter of better living conditions and availability of medical and health facilities and, therefore, a further raise of the age at retirement may be considered necessary and justified. Shri Pai rightly did not urge before us that there was any reversal of the trend in the Bombay region and we are therefore spared from going into that question. 11. In the Dunlop Rubber Company case ( AIR 1960 SC 207 ) and in the Imperial Chemical Industries case, ( AIR 1961 SC 1175 ), the SC primarily relied on the trend in the region and in the Burmah Shell Oil Company. (1970-1 Lab LJ 363 (SC)) case, the Court observed that the trend in a particular area was the most important factor in the matter of fixing the age of superannuation. Another factor which appears to be receiving importance in certain circles is the rising rate of unemployment amongst the younger generation. The effect of increasing or decreasing the age of retirement on the rate of unemployment in the younger generation and an the household economics of the older generation is a matter for deep study and investigation. There is no evidence before us on these points. The effect of increasing or decreasing the age of retirement on the rate of unemployment in the younger generation and an the household economics of the older generation is a matter for deep study and investigation. There is no evidence before us on these points. Nowadays, as pointed out in the Burmah Shell Oil Companys case (and other cases,) because of better conditions of living and availability of medical and health facilities, the average span of life has increased and a person between 55 and 60 years of age is alert, active, hale and healthy and may be said to be at the prime of his life. That is also the time when he has to meet several financial commitments and demands. To retire him at that age may mean virtually to throw him to the wolves. Can the nation afford to have on its hand several families unable to fully support themselves? Can the nation afford to throw away the knowledge and experience of these people by retiring them when they are still capable of turning out some years of good work? On the other hand, can the nation afford to have an army of unemployed young men necessarily leading bitter and frustrated lives? Can the nation afford to allow them to fritter away their energies in unhealthy pursuits to which they may be tempted? But then arises the broader question is the retirement of men of experience at an age when they are still useful to the community the proper solution to the problem of unemployment among the young? Is it not an unimaginative solution? Is not the solution the creation of greater employment opportunities, by increasing production and its modes? All these are questions which are difficult to answer though everyone has an opinion, often ad hoc. These questions require deep investigation, research and study. We cannot properly answer them nor is there any evidence on these points. The counsel, we must say in fairness, refrained from arguing that the retirement age should not be raised because of the rising rate of unemployment and we also refrain from expressing any opinion. The workmen were content to rely on the undoubted trend as revealed by the decisions of this court and the company was content to rely on the comparative statement of retirement age of clerical staff in other oil companies. The workmen were content to rely on the undoubted trend as revealed by the decisions of this court and the company was content to rely on the comparative statement of retirement age of clerical staff in other oil companies. We are compelled to decide this case on the limited material available to us and we, therefore, confine the decision to the facts of the case. 12. The Tribunal noticed that the age of retirement of the clerical staff of the company in its Marketing Division was 58 years and observed :- "Similarly, it is apparent that the company has fixed the age of retirement of the clerical staff in its Marketing Division, both in Bombay and other places at 58 years. I do not find any valid reason why the concerned workmen should be denied a raise in the age of their retirement at least to the extent of 58 years" So according to the Tribunal, the retirement age of the clerical staff of the Refinery Division had to be increased at least to 58 years, since the retirement age of the clerical staff of the Marketing Division of the Company had been fixed at 58 years. The relevant and outstanding fact which the Tribunal failed to notice here was that the clerical staff of the Marketing Division have a pension scheme while the clerical staff of the Refinery Division have no such scheme. The general terminal benefits on attaining the age of superannuation are pension, gratuity and provident fund. It is not in dispute that while the clerical staff of the Marketing Division have all three terminal benefits the clerical staff of the Refinery Division are not entitled to any pension. This must necessarily have an impact on the raising of their retirement age. Therefore, without travelling outside the very company, we think that the Industrial Tribunal fell into a serious error in failing to notice that there was no pension scheme in the case of clerical staff of the Refinery Division while there was such a scheme in the case of the clerical staff of the Marketing Division. On the material available to us, we think that the retirement age in the case of clerical staff of the Refinery Division should be fixed at 60 years. 13. On the material available to us, we think that the retirement age in the case of clerical staff of the Refinery Division should be fixed at 60 years. 13. Shri G. B. Pai, learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation drew our attention to the circumstances that the new scales of pay of the clerical staff of the the Refinery Division of the Respondent-Corporation compared favourably with the scales of pay of the clerical staff of other refineries elsewhere in India and were higher than the scales of pay of the clerical staff of the Marketing Division of the Respondent-Corporation itself. Shri Pai, however would not go so far as to say that the scales of pay were so designed taking into account the provision for pensionary benefits or the lack of it. He could not do so for the obvious reason that it would be an irrelevant consideration unless he could assert that the wage structure took into account the capacity for savings factor. Again, obviously, he could not so assert as that was never the companys case and also in view of the raising universal inflationary trend of which we are bound to take judicial notice. The differing nature and conditions of work may well be the reason for the different scales of pay. We assume nothing and so we make no comment one way or the other in the absence of evidence. It is enough for the present purpose to say that the Tribunal did not base its conclusion on this circumstance. 14. Shri Pai invited our attention to the circumstance that in other refineries elsewhere in India, the retirement age of clerical staff has generally been fixed at 58. But we are primarily concerned with the trend in the Bombay region. In matters of this nature, greater importance must naturally be given to the regional factor. That was why in the Dunlop case, emphasis was laid on the "prevailing conditions, particularly in the region," in the Imperial Chemical Industries case ( AIR 1961 SC 1175 ), the trend in the Bombay region was considered the most vital factor and in the Burmah Shell case ((1970) 1 Lab LJ 363 (SC)) it was stressed that in fixing the age of superannuation, the most important factor that had to be taken into consideration was the trend in the particular area. We may add here that in applying the region-cum-industry formula, the emphasis to be placed on region or industry depends upon varying factors. In Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1964) 1 Lab LJ 342 this court observed that where the number of industries of the same kind in a particular region was small, it was the region aspect of the industry-cum-region formula which assumed importance particularly in the case of clerical and subordinate staff. Reference was made to Workmen of Hindusthan Motors v. Hinusthan Motors (1962) 2 Lab LJ 352 (SC) and French Motor Car Company v. Their Workmen, (1962) 2 Lab LJ 744 and it was said: "Where there are a large number of industrial concerns of the same kind in the same region, it would be proper to put greater emphasis on the industry part of the industry-cum-region principle as that would put all concerns on a more or less equal footing in the matter of production costs and therefore, in the matter of competition in the market and this will equally apply to clerical and subordinate staff whose wages and dearness allowance also go into calculation of production costs. But where the number of comparable concerns is small in a particular region and therefore, the competition aspect is not of the same importance the region part of the industry-cum-region formula assumes greater importance particularly with reference to clerical and subordinate staff and this was what was emphasised in the French Motor Car Co. case, where the company was already paying the highest wages in the particular line of business and therefore comparison had to be made with as similar concerns as possible in different lines of business for the purpose of fixing wage-scales and dearness allowance. The principle therefore which emerges from these two decisions is that in applying the industry-cum-region formula for fixing wage scales the Tribunal should lay stress on the industry part of the formula if there are a large number of concerns in the same region carrying on the same industry; in such a case in order that production cost may not be unequal and there may be equal competition, wages should generally be fixed on the basis of the comparable industries, namely, industries of the same kind. But where the number of industries of the same kind in a particular region is small, it is the region part of the industry-cum-region formula which assumes importance particularly in the case of clerical and subordinate staff, for as pointed out in the French Motor Car Company case there is not much difference in the work of this class of employees in different industries." 15. In French Motor Car Co. v. Their Workmen ( AIR 1963 SC 1327 ), an argument was advanced that the appellant Company was paying the highest wage scales in a particular line of business in which it was engaged and there was, therefore, no justification for increasing the wage scales by comparison with wage scales in other lines of business. This argument was rejected with the following observations (at p. 1329) :- "We are of opinion that this argument cannot be accepted, for it would then mean that if a concern is paying the highest wages in a particular line of business, there can be no increase in wages in that concern whatever may be the economic conditions prevailing at the time of dispute. It seems to us, therefore, that where a concern is paying the highest wages in a particular line of business, there should be greater emphasis on the region part of the industry-cum-region principle, though it would be the duty of the industrial court to see that for purposes of comparison such other industries in the region are taken into account as are as nearly similar to the concern before it as possible. Though, therefore, in a case where a particular concern is already paying the highest wages in its own line of business, the industrial courts would be justified in looking at wages paid in that region in other lines of business, it should take care to see that the concerns from other lines of business taken into account are such as are as nearly similar as possible, to the line of business carried on by the concern before it." 16. In Workmen of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd., (1969) 2 Lab LJ 398, this court relying on the French Motor Car Company case ( AIR 1963 SC 1327 ) held that where two other paper industries in the region are of recent origin and their profits were smaller, it was the duty of the Industrial Tribunal not to compare the appellant-company with those companies, but to compare the same with other industries in the region, three of which were collieries, two cement companies, one a steel plant and one aluminium factory. 17. These decisions make it clear that where there are no comparable industries in the region, the regional aspect of the region-cum-industry formula must be given precedence. That was what was done in the Dunlop Rubber Co., ( AIR 1960 SC 207 ), the Imperial Chemical Industries, ( AIR 1961 SC 1175 ) and the Burmah Shell Oil Co. cases, ((1970) 1 Lab LJ 363) (SC). Rightly, therefore, the Tribunal did not rest its conclusion on this factor. 18. Shri Pai informed us that even in the case of the clerical staff of the Marketing Division, there is no longer any pension scheme for those that have joined the Corporation after nationalisation. This again was not one of the grounds on which the Tribunal rested its conclusion and we wish to say no more about it, as we do not want to jeopardise any claim that the workmen may have on that basis or any answer that the Management may have in that regard. 19. In the result the appeal is allowed and the retirement age of the clerical staff of the Refinery Division of the company is fixed at 60 years. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 356 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.